Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
Aleena Alex – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preventive detention must be strictly scrutinized when the detenu is already released on bail. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. failure to supply legible documents violates the constitutional right to make an effective representation. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. the state's burden to justify preventive detention against existing bail conditions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. judicial review focuses on the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction and adherence to procedural safeguards. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
Soumen Sen, C. J .
“The jurisdiction of suspicion” is invoked by the writ petitioner, the wife of the detenu, in view of the order of detention passed by the District Collector & District Magistrate of Pathanamthitta District under Section 3(3) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (in short the “Act”). The detenu was directed to be detained and kept in Central Prison, Viyyur, is the subject matter of challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
2. The learned brother Justice Syam Kumar V. M. has elaborately discussed the matter, both in respect of fact and law, with which I fully concur.
3. I would li
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
